have a look at that. the second question is did he correct the l question is did he correct the record quickly enough? how do you go about proving that? i record quickly enough? how do you go about proving that? about proving that? i think that s where he s about proving that? i think that s where he s facing about proving that? i think that s where he s facing the about proving that? i think that s where he s facing the most - about proving that? i think that s. where he s facing the most danger today. it s pretty evident that he didn t correct the record quickly. in his omission, he says this is because you then had the sue gray inquiry and then the metropolitan police inquiry. it s fair enough to say while he is under investigation by the police that he doesn t come back to the house of commons and hold his hand up and say, i may have committed an offence, breach the law is. however, what you had to look at now is what else is going on and the real question is about misguidan
indeed even deliberate? from a legal point of view, how do you prove intention? intention? that s an interesting . uestion. intention? that s an interesting question- i intention? that s an interesting question. i think intention? that s an interesting question. i think the intention? that s an interesting question. i think the going - intention? that s an interesting question. i think the going to l intention? that s an interesting i question. i think the going to want to look at his state of mind at the time. that s going to be affected by all of the documentary evidence that they have collected about what he had been told, by whom, when. and then the surrounding circumstances. particularly some of the issues which may have prompted him to think about this, including the soo great inquiry and then the intervention of the metropolitan police. all of that will have its part. the committee has published its evidence today which sets out quite a lot of this, and the public can go a